I think we've all experienced conversations where you're talking about your favorite something or other - movie, TV show, music, whatever - and someone takes issue with one of your selections. They then list all the imperfections that they assume you've overlooked. Sometimes they convince you to come around to their way of thinking, but other times, even recognizing the imperfections, you see no reason to alter your lofty opinion. The latter reaction is the one I have when people criticize today's FSF selection. From an objective stand-point, its far from perfect but you know what? I don't care, as I still find it to be a lot of fun. Listen...do you smell something?
Ghostbusters (1984)
Let's just get the (valid) criticisms out of the way first. Yes, the special effects are now somewhat dated. Yes, the story has a number of gaping logical holes. Yes, the "romance" storyline involving the characters played by Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver is crepe paper thin. And yes, the soundtrack performances pack in more cheese than the town of Gruyeres. Even so, I love this movie.
First the basic premise of a trio of scientists setting up a ghost-eradication service just in time to save New York from an angry Sumerian god is absurd. This both gives the movie a level of originality, while at the same time making it clear that tight story-telling and logic may, at times, be in short supply. It also sets up fertile ground for comedy - at times silly and at times pretty sophisticated.
Of course, much of the credit for the success of the movie as entertainment has to go to Murray. While the rest of the film's performances are somewhat uneven (With both Dan Ackroyd's and Weaver's being quite good while Harold Ramis' simply confirms that he's a better writer than performer) Murray's turn as Dr. Peter Venkman is fantastic. Honestly, is there any comedic actor out there better at portraying a smarmy, cocksure and sarcastic middle aged smart-ass? It's actually Weaver's character, Dana Barrett, who nails Murray's performance in the script itself when she says he reminds her of a game-show host. Murray is a tremendously talented guy, and he's capable of excelling in a wide variety of roles, but its when he's playing guys like Venkman that he really knocks it out of the park.
Finally, there is something very refreshing about the underlying message of the film. A handful of odd scientists are booted out of their cushy academic jobs (which at least one finds terrifying because, you know, the private sector actually expects results), and sink their money into a new business venture. This business ultimately saves New York from a danger brought on, in no small measure, by the strong-arm tactics of a government agency that shut the business down, ostensibly in the interest of public safety. Such a positive view of private entrepreneurship coupled with the mockery of academia and the do-goodery of an over-weening government should be enough to warm any YeahRighter's heart.
So, next time you don't know what movie to rent or put in the Netflix queue, who ya gonna call?
Comments